On 2020/12/29 下午6:20, Eli Cohen wrote:
-static int vhost_process_iotlb_msg(struct vhost_dev *dev,
+static int vhost_process_iotlb_msg(struct vhost_dev *dev, u16 asid,
struct vhost_iotlb_msg *msg)
{
int ret = 0;
+ if (asid != 0)
+ return -EINVAL;
+
mutex_lock(&dev->mutex);
vhost_dev_lock_vqs(dev);
switch (msg->type) {
@@ -1135,6 +1138,7 @@ ssize_t vhost_chr_write_iter(struct vhost_dev *dev,
struct vhost_iotlb_msg msg;
size_t offset;
int type, ret;
+ u16 asid = 0;
You assume asid occupies just 16 bits. So maybe you should reserve the
other 16 bits for future extension:
struct vhost_msg_v2 {
__u32 type;
- __u32 reserved;
+ __u16 asid;
+ __u16 reserved;
union {
Moreover, maybe this should be reflected in previous patches that use
the asid:
-static int mlx5_vdpa_set_map(struct vdpa_device *vdev, struct vhost_iotlb *iotlb)
+static int mlx5_vdpa_set_map(struct vdpa_device *vdev, u16 asid,
+ struct vhost_iotlb *iotlb)
-static int vhost_vdpa_process_iotlb_msg(struct vhost_dev *dev,
+static int vhost_vdpa_process_iotlb_msg(struct vhost_dev *dev, u16 asid,
struct vhost_iotlb_msg *msg)
etc.
Good catch.
This is a bug of the code actually. Since I want to stick to 32bit to be
large enough for e.g PASID.
Will fix.
Thanks
